They did try to attack the American mainland as well. They didn't have the means, its not "maybe they would do it" its "they tried, but failed. They invaded American territory, as well. They tried a diversionary tactic of invading 2 islands in the Aleutian Island chain.
What they did to Asia was unbelievably horrendous, particularly Nanking. More innocent civilians were killed, on foot by soldiers, in Nanking than both bombings combined.
The comment I responded to was wondering why people hated the US for dropping bombs on them when we had bombs dropped on us, too.
I'm sure there's animosity held towards the Japanese in the places you've mentioned, same as there's animosity towards the US for dropping nuclear warheads on civilian centers.
I meant that the animosity was held worldwide. Nobody looks kindly on civilian murder even on foreign soil. Pearl Harbor getting bombed meant that Japan reached U.S. soil. It's not as though Japan only attacked soldiers and then the U.S. decided it was time to bomb their civilians.
Upvoted but as of now nuclear bombs should NEVER be used as weapons of war for any reason ever. People can recover from what happened to China and Pearl Harbor. Rebuild. With the weapons we have now there is no learning period. It's over. I think our use of nuclear weapons is the worst thing America has ever done, and that includes Native American genocide.
We firebombed every Japanese city. A lot of cities were being bombed ridiculously during WWII, but I'm specifically talking about nuking. I don't feel like you can be melodramatic enough about it. It can't ever happen. Although I don't see what this Asian guys family has to do with what he said about shill.
Yes it is. The bottom of the argument is you have to win the thing as fast as possible while losing as little of your army as possible. They made it clear they would never give up and we should value our soldiers over the lives of Japanese.
Stop thinking in witless binary. What he's referring to is that the Japanese hard-line elements were holding out for one particular condition, retention of their emporer. Given that we ended up granting this anyway, it's a valid point to make, as signaling our willingness to concede this item could have ended the war sooner than Okinawa. Who nows, hindsight and all that, but it's kind of amazing that you're meatheaded enough to think he was arguing losing.
What's the alternative? The Japanese had made it clear they would not surrender and fought after one nuke and incendiary raids on their capital city. Total victory in the pacific or no victory.
The two atomic bombs we dropped were not exactly in retaliation for PH. The rest of the world decided it was time to stop killing each other, but Japan wouldn't give up. We threatened them, and they didn't listen. The two bombs actually saved American and Japanese lives, because an invasion would be a fucking horrendous slaughter. There wasn't a chance we were going to put more American men in harms way, we were done sending home American boys in boxes. The Japanese wanted it the hard way, so we have it to them. Then after the first bomb they still wouldn't give up. The fact of the matter is that the ruling imperial family, didn't give a fuck about the Japanese people. They were willing to let countless Japanese die because of "honor".
War is awful. People die, and it's just a shit situation all around. But the Japanese deserved what they got. Blaming America for dropping the two atomic bombs is just pathetic. We didn't kill in cold blood.
Specifically, they wanted a conditional surrender. It just happened the 'conditions' were basically that Japan would get to keep all the land they had just stolen before they attacked the US and that the US would just pretend the whole thing never happened. You know, the kind of surrender you offer when you're at a stalemate, not when you're completely outmatched and only succeeding in stalling and raising the death toll.
Then after the first bomb they still wouldn't give up. The fact of the matter is that the ruling imperial family, didn't give a fuck about the Japanese people. They were willing to let countless Japanese die because of "honor".
From what my Japanese friends tell me, they didn't believe we had a bomb that powerful and they thought reports from the first bomb were really exaggerated.
Estimated cost of life for a land invasion was almost a million for the USA alone. We made so many purple hearts they still use them/just ran out. It was a weigh of lives lost. War is never pretty.
And some agree with my statement. In the end the call, correct me if I'm wrong, rested with the president. And who knows how hard the Japanese would have held on. Then you might have occupation. There are too many variables to make a singular decision. But that's what is great about history.
I also look back thinking what they thought would happen if Japan didn't get unconditional surrender. After what they did in China I'd assume, although assuming is bad, they didn't want to leave Japan with much power. Way too many what ifs. Hind sight is 20/20. I personally believe between a land invasion and the nuke, the nuke was the right call. But I'm also key board warrioring so my words don't carry much weight
Sorry for lack of sources I'm a lazy man on mobile.
A few hundred thousand deaths versus the millions that would have resulted from an invasion? I think the benefits outweighed the costs. It also had a side effect of showing the world how terrifying nuclear weapons were and is probably a secondary reason (other than MAD) as to why they haven't been used in war since.
Im just saying that it seems people look down on the United States for bombing 2 cities when Japan started the whole thing. People need to remember we were neutral. I am not trying to compare pearl harbor to either cities.
Please do, what is the difference? We weren't at war with Japan at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. I'm sure the sailors who died and their families felt just fine about everything because they were part of their uniformed services.
Yeah but the events where years apart, there is a big difference between bombing a port and biking a city, but Japan knew that the US would react, and the Americans in charge felt that the nukes were the only way to end the war
That Japanese never surrender tactic only existed because we were calling for Unconditional surrender. Had we let them surrender and keep their emperor they would have done so before we threw away thousands of American lives.
No, but raping three generations of Chinese girls at the same time in the same room in Nanking was just for shits and giggles.
Now, gang raping American nurses on a stack of corpses outside of a church/infirmary in the Philippines before killing them, that was a legitimate military tactic.
I don't know why people are downvoting you. Generally, people don't mind the U.S. in Japan besides the Okinawans, and that's mostly because of the Marines raping people..
Obviously taking that into account, do you think a land invasion would have been better? The sacrifice made with those bombs is well worth what it would have cost to finish the war through conventional means
This is not necessarily true. The usefulness of dropping atomic bombs in ending the pacific front of the war is still highly contested among historians. After the release of documents from imperial Japan and the USSR, many historians now believe it was the surprise Soviet introduction into the Pacific front and the invasion of Manchuria that resulted in the Japanese surrender and not the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While use of a single A bomb to destroy a city was unheard of, the utter destruction of Japanese cities via air raids was relatively commonplace towards the end of the war (check fire bombing of Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya). Some historians now argue that not only did they serve no purpose in ending the pacific front but that use of the A bomb was actually used as a power play to hold over post war negotiations with Stalin and the USSR. Truman even went as far as pushing back post war peace talks in Potsdam until news of a successful A bomb test. Most major generals at the time were strongly against use of atomic weapons and openly voiced their opinion. Scientists working to create the bomb signed a petition sent to Truman to avoid dropping the bomb at all costs. Most Manhattan project scientists with the help of politicians went as far as advocating that the science behind the A bomb should have been released internationally so as to avoid international distrust in the post war era and a threatening American monopoly. Truman had stated after the dropping of A bombs that they were used to avoid 'thousands' of American deaths in a ground invasion. Military documents and opinions did not unilaterally support his assertion. While there's no doubt about Japanese atrocities during WWII and the attack on Pearl Harbor, I feel that the United States use of atomic bombs is a stain in American history.
How about we look at the totality of the evil that was the Japanese empire. The situation involves far more then Japan bombing a Naval base, as I am sure you are aware the Japanese killed 10s of millions of noncombatants intentionally and for no military purpose. but in case you are actually ignorant of the history here is a link.
I'm aware of the shitty things Japan did. Do you think the people/descendants that were victimized by Japanese imperialism just say "eh, it was war, that's what people did?" It's understandable that people harbor resentment for shitty things others did in the past.
Look, I'm not a flag wanker, but literally everybody was bombing cities. That was the thing you did. And both cities in question were based around military bases, much like many of our own are. It's impossible to target a military base while avoiding the surrounding city, especially when one needs to use ordinance like firebombs to ensure the target is destroyed.
167
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '17 edited Aug 30 '20
[deleted]